Nancy’s presentation focused primarily on Lunsford’s attempt to “rediscover” woman writers of the past and her emphasis on collaborative writing in the academic world. It seemed as though Lunsford wished to empower all writers through research in these two areas.
Nancy’s first major focus dealt with why reclaiming women writers was important. I believe that Nancy was trying to show how Lunsford associated the rhetorical canon of memory with the socially constructed idea of our historical memory regarding composition. By reclaiming these lost bits of living memory, our historical body of composition would have a part of its memory retuned, which would create a more complete history of us to look back upon. Nancy tied this idea of claiming lost writers to Lunsford’s abhorrence of discrimination in general. While I don’t think it was stressed enough, it sounds as though Lunsford would be an excellent resource for research into several issues of multiculturalism. I hope this was the connection she was trying to make; after rereading this post it seems poorly worded. As always, feel free to comment and set me strait.
The other point Nancy was driving at was Lunsford’s desire for collaboration. The benefits of collaboration in composition are obvious, but Nancy’s presentation pointed the discussion toward an area I did not expect. It had never really occurred to me that one might wish to write a collaborative dissertation, but apparently there have been cases, and Lunsford is in agreement. While Nancy mentioned one or two cases, I would be interested to hear the exact reasons why such proposals were rejected, rather than just our speculation; this seems like a genuinely interesting proposition that I would imagine universities on the left fringe would be eager to embrace. In a related matter, Nancy also mentioned Lunsford’s outspoken opposition to maintaining the status quo in several areas of education including the teaching of composition and higher education’s standardized tests. One of the questions I plan to ask next Tuesday is in regards to Lunsford’s challenge to the GRE.
I found the historical connections in the presentation to most interesting, but there were a few areas of discussion that could have been made more clear including a reference to our written assignment within the presentation and some more information about what exactly Lunsford found wrong or incomplete in the list of topics at the very end of the presentation: the same list that contained the GRE. I am sure these question will be addressed in Tuesday’s class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes Please ask those questions on Tuesday. I had planned at the end ( in the Q&A )to ask what they got out of the collaboration in the beginning. In discussing , did you learn something you didn't know, or clarify something that was blurry, or did discussion bring up more questions that may or may not have been answered in the presentation.
ReplyDeleteI think I said briefly before sending you off to write that this exercise might bring up some questions that you could ask in the Q and A.
Lunsford pointed out that when writing collaboratively with her friend Lisa Ede, that one of several advantages is that when they wrote, they talked - wrote - revised - talked - revised - wrote - and talked some more. Lundsford stated that this interchange gave valuable feedback to each other and it also helped them to clarify their ideas.
As to the question of multiculturalism, I agree that she would be a great source for research. This was a huge focus for her and the two examples I gave for students struggling with prejudice in higher education were one black women and one hispanic man.
The women writers whose voices were recovered to add to the history of Rhetoric purposely included women of color as well as Anglos.
I am glad for your questions and thanks for the heads up!